Page 1 of 39 WHY FLORIDA SHOULD LEGISLATE DEPLETED URANIUM (DU) TESTING FOR THE FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD Robert H. Foley Florida international University College of Law Spring 2009 Special Project Faculty Adviser: Professor John Stack ABSTRACT: Florida National Guard troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have incurred varying degrees of exposure to the weapon-form of nuclear waste, depleted uranium (DU). Since 2005, several states have enacted legislation to provide information and assure post-exposure testing on behalf of their citizens enlisted in the National Guard. While all depleted uranium exposure is not fatal or hazardous, situations existed where significant radioactive and toxic chemical contact with DU occurred The environmental persistence of depleted uranium’s heavy metal properties, and its long radioactive half-life allows for contemporary and future exposure of Florida National Guard service personnel to depleted uranium. This note reviews the U.S. military’s policy on the use of depleted uranium, Florida National Guard troop exposure to it, and proposes a rationale for enacting Florida legislation to safeguard Florida National Guard troops and veterans. An addendum is included that formats an example of legislation, homogenizing other states’ legislative ideas and concepts. Juris Doctor candidate, May 2010, Florida International University College of Law; Veterinarian, graduate of Cornell University, special interest in tropical medicine and radiation induced immune suppression and cancer.
39
Embed
WHY FLORIDA SHOULD LEGISLATE DEPLETED URANIUM (DU) … · Spring 2009 Special Project Faculty Adviser: Professor John Stack ABSTRACT: Florida National Guard troops deployed to Iraq
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1 of 39
WHY FLORIDA SHOULD LEGISLATE DEPLETED URANIUM (DU)
TESTING FOR THE FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD
Robert H. Foley
Florida international University
College of Law
Spring 2009 Special Project
Faculty Adviser: Professor John Stack
ABSTRACT:
Florida National Guard troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have incurred varying
degrees of exposure to the weapon-form of nuclear waste, depleted uranium (DU). Since 2005,
several states have enacted legislation to provide information and assure post-exposure testing
on behalf of their citizens enlisted in the National Guard. While all depleted uranium exposure is
not fatal or hazardous, situations existed where significant radioactive and toxic chemical
contact with DU occurred The environmental persistence of depleted uranium’s heavy metal
properties, and its long radioactive half-life allows for contemporary and future exposure of
Florida National Guard service personnel to depleted uranium.
This note reviews the U.S. military’s policy on the use of depleted uranium, Florida
National Guard troop exposure to it, and proposes a rationale for enacting Florida legislation to
safeguard Florida National Guard troops and veterans. An addendum is included that formats
an example of legislation, homogenizing other states’ legislative ideas and concepts.
Juris Doctor candidate, May 2010, Florida International University College of Law; Veterinarian,
graduate of Cornell University, special interest in tropical medicine and radiation induced immune
suppression and cancer.
Page 2 of 39
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 3
II. DEPLETED URANIUM (DU) ................................................................................. 4
A. Radioactivity and half-lives. ...................................................................................... 4
B. Military uses ............................................................................................................... 6
III. MEDICAL EFFECTS OF DU EXPOSURE. ......................................................... 8
V. CURRENT DU PROTOCOLS FOR FNG ............................................................. 16
A. Department of Defense/Veterans Administration ................................................... 16
B. Florida National Guard............................................................................................ 16
VI. FEDERAL ENACTMENTS FOR FNG TROOPS AND VETERANS. ............ 17
A. Federal statutes and regulations .............................................................................. 17
B. Department of Defense and Veterans Administration programs ............................ 18
VII. STATE LEGISLATION REGARDING DU AND TROOPS. ........................... 19
A. Why legislate? ......................................................................................................... 19
B. Legislative components. .......................................................................................... 20
VIII. FEDERAL RULES, FEDERAL LAW CHANGES PERTAINING TO DU, AND FEDERAL LITIGATION. ................................................................................... 23
A. Administrative claims ............................................................................................. 24
B. Federal litigation ..................................................................................................... 26
IX. FUTURE IMPACT OF DU ON FNG VETERANS ............................................ 26
A. Cumulative nature of DU. ....................................................................................... 26
B. Absence of U.S.-Iraq clean-up program. ................................................................. 27
C. Implication within international treaties ................................................................. 28
D. Continual veteran monitoring recommendation ..................................................... 29
Like a suspended Damoclean sword, a soldier’s neurological deterioration,
memory loss, blood, bone, lung or kidney cancer, genetic mutations and next-
generational birth defects can escape prompt detection or delay onset of any symptom to
a future, unknown time with catastrophic circumstances.
This writing proposes the enactment of appropriate Florida legislation to better
safeguard Florida National Guard troops and veterans—the current state of legislation
being wholly inadequate to protect FNG troops exposed to depleted uranium’s hazards.
An addendum is included that articulates an example of such possible legislation
influenced by other states’ legislative ideas, and concepts.
I. DEPLETED URANIUM (DU)
A. Radioactivity and half-lives.
Uranium is a radioactive trace mineral, dispersed throughout the natural
environment, and present in water, plants and animals in variable amounts.7 Its natural
radioactive components consist of three isotopes: U-238 in concentrations of 99.28%; U-
235 in concentrations of 0.72%; and U-234 in concentrations of 0.0057%.8 The
radioactive half life of these isotopes respectively is 4.5 billion years, 710 million years
and 247,000 years.9 Uranium is enriched by a gaseous diffusion process in order to
concentrate the U-235 fraction from its natural concentration of 0.72% to an increased
range of 1.5-3% for nuclear reactor use, or up to 90% for nuclear weapon application.10
7 World Health Organization [WHO], Depleted Uranium, Depleted Uranium Fact Sheet No. 257 (2003),
available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/print.html. 8 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Features: Depleted Uranium Questions and Answers
(2002), available at http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/du_qaa.shtml#q10. 9 Id.
10 Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illness (OSAGWI), Follow-Up Department of Defense
Exposure Report, Environmental Exposure Report Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II), III, 9 (2002),
Page 5 of 39
After enrichment, the residual mineral by-product with reduced levels of U-235
becomes the uranium waste, so-called “depleted uranium,” and is approximately 40%
less radioactive than un-enriched natural uranium.11
Depleted uranium has peaceful uses
such as ballast counter weights in aircraft vessels, as medical radiation shields, and as
containers for transporting radioactive material.12
In past decades the Department of Defense (DoD) has reprocessed spent nuclear
reactor fuel in order to re-enrich the U-235 portion to extract plutonium for nuclear
weapon usage.13
The twice-depleted uranium waste was thereafter manufactured to
become munitions.14
In so doing, the Department of Defense created DU armaments
with man-made, trace, and highly radioactive isotopes such as U-236, neptunium,
americium, plutonium, and technetium-99. 15
These isotopes are reported at very low
levels within the manufactured DU penetrator, and lower still in the war theater
environment (expressed as parts per billion).16
Man-made U-236 and plutonium have been found in spent DU munitions in
Kosovo, as reported by NATO, citing to a UN study.17
Termed “dirty uranium
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/ (a detailed and readable synopsis of information on DU, its uses and
relevance in Gulf War Illness); and see Deployment Health and Family Readiness Library, Depleted
IV. FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD (FNG) EXPOSURE RISKS AND
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA.
The Office of Special Assistant Gulf War Illness Report lists three levels of DU
exposure risk applicable to all troops in the combat theaters.70
The most severe
exposures, Level I, are combat troop victims with friendly-fire wounds; those with
shrapnel wounds or those who had direct contact with DU ammunition-impacted targets;
those who inhaled aerosolized DU; or those troops who were open-wound contaminated
with DU.71
Level II risk exposure examples include those who had inhaled aerosolized
DU; had oral, ingested particles of DU, or clothes contamination while working around
DU targets or DU damaged military vehicles; and those troops who repaired or handled
the damaged combat vehicles that had been hit with friendly fire.72
Risk Level III
examples are those troops who had transient DU exposure downwind from depleted
uranium-impacted targets, target fires, or burning munitions.73
The raw numbers of Florida National Guard troops deployed to theaters where
depleted uranium is or was utilized are displayed below in Table II.
70
OSAGWI Gulf (II), Tab G, DU Exposures in the Gulf War, supra note 10 at 1-13; and see Office of the
Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness and Military
Deployments Health Risk Assessment Consultation No. 26-MF-577-00D: Depleted Uranium-OSAGWI
Levels I, II, and III Scenarios (Sept. 15, 2000) available at http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du/. This is a highly technical, heavily tabulated, and detailed analysis of all risk level exposures, enumerated with cross-
referenced exposure scenarios for Southwest Asia depleted uranium exposures. 71
Id., OSAGWI Gulf (II), Tab–G, 1-3. 72
Id., 3-13; and see End Notes at 93, Lead Sheet #14316, Interview with 144th
Services and Supply
Company NJANGNCO, (Jan. 28, 1998), available at
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du/du_refs/n21en093/8033_010_0000001.htm. National Guard troops were
often rear deployed troops assigned to assess the damage of these DU contaminated military vehicles, End
Notes at 97, Lead Sheet #14200, Interview with the Platoon Leader Operations Center of the 144th
Services and Supply Company NJANG Storage Yard at KKMC, (Jan. 19, 1998) available at
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du/du_refs/n21en097/8019_026_0000001.htm. New Jersey’s 144th Service
and Supply Company who evaluated damaged vehicles as they were hauled from Iraq to Kuwait prior to
reshipment stateside, initially did not know the vehicles were radioactive, and the Guard unit was not
properly trained for this task as per the Department of the Army. 73
Id.,Tab–G, D, Level III Participants, 1. Camp Doha. The report specified the Camp Doha clean up and
and to acknowledge the deficiencies of its flawed DU post-
exposure screening programs84
and of its handling procedures for DU contaminated
equipment and munitions.85
During the Persian Gulf War, troop preparation for DU use, handling, exposure,
and treatment was scarce or absent.86
Some Guard equipment recovery units did not
know that Abrams heavy tanks were DU-plate-reinforced and therefore emitted
radioactivity.87
Details on the lack of Army core-training for DU munitions use and
handling (except for Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel-ranked officers) prior to the Persian
Gulf War is noted in a General Accounting Office document, which also states that it
wasn’t until 1998 when DU training was tasked as a requirement for unit-level training.88
Further, it noted that fifteen percent of the Persian Gulf War soldiers exposed to DU
experienced such bureaucratic problems as no post-deployment contact by the
Department of Defense or with the Veterans Administration; no urine screening for DU
toxic exposure; no medical appointments pertaining to DU exposure; and no participation
in DU screening program.89
The current depleted uranium and ionizing radiation exposure programs for the
veterans and troops of the Persian Gulf War, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
83
Id. 84
The Department of Defense in 1994 created the CCEP, supra note 78. This was modeled upon the
Veterans Administration’s Gulf War Registry, supra note 75, which is administered by the Veterans Health
Administration, available at http://www1.va.gov/health/index.asp. 85
Department of the Army Pamphlet 700-48: Handling Procedures for Equipment Contaminated with Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities (Dec. 1999), available at http://www.army.mil/USAPA/
epubs/pdf.p700_48.pdf. This pamphlet was ordered by General Shinseki to apply to all, Department of the
Army commands, the U.S. Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard of the United States, it prescribes
40 hours of DU training for soldiers, and is referenced in certain States’ legislation as the controlling
federal DU protocol manual. 86
General Accounting Office (GAO), Gulf War Illnesses: Understanding of Health Effects from Depleted
Uranium Evolving but Safety Training Needed (2000) available at
available at http:www1.va.gov/VHAPUBLICATIONS/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=1573; VA War
Related Illness and Injury Study Centers (WRIISC)(July 15, 2004), available at
http:www1.va.gov/VHAPUBLICATIONS/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=1121. These three handbooks,
germane to Florida National Guard DU exposure issues, are at the VA website:
http://www1.va.gov/vhapublications/. 97
Handling Procedures, supra note 85.
Page 17 of 39
safety.98
The United Kingdom and its Ministry of Defense, like the U.S. government, has
enacted comprehensive programs for monitoring and testing of its troops and veterans.99
The Royal Society in response to Parliament’s concerns monitored the Ministry of
Defense DU programs.100
VI. FEDERAL ENACTMENTS FOR FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD
TROOPS AND VETERANS.
A. Federal statutes and regulations
Federal statutes ensure basic entitlement to Florida National Guard veterans for
personal injuries incurred or diseases contracted in the line of active military, naval or air
service duty during a period of war,101
or during a period other than war,102
and
specifically the Persian Gulf War.103
Other federal statutes and regulations specify
disease conditions104
and cancer types that may be attributed to military service.105
Congress enacted, and amended to liberalize, federal mandates to assure military
medical tracking with broad discretionary program allowances for the Secretary of
Defense106
and to provide for compensation for disabilities due to undiagnosed
98
Id.; and see GAO, supra note 86 at 31-37. 99
The Undersecretary of State for Defense, Final Report of the Depleted Uranium Oversight Board (Feb. 2007), available at http:www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CABAB04E-3584-4234-A62E-C6034E543B6C
/0/final_reportfeb2007.pdf. 100
The Royal Society Part I and Part II, supra note 51. 101
38 U.S.C § 1110 (2008). The basic entitlement statute for compensation of United States’ veterans
disabled, injured or diseased in the line of duty during war. 102
38 U.S.C. § 1131 (2008). The parallel statute for United States’ veterans disabled, injured or diseased in
the line of duty during other than a time of war. 103
38 U.S.C. § 1117 (2008). Applies to health care for Persian Gulf War veterans and codified the
Secretary of Defense’s discretion to clarify conditions of chronic illness within 38 U.S.C. § 1117(b). 104
38 U.S.C §§ 1112(a) and (b) (chronic diseases which may be presumed to be related to military service);
and see 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (defines chronic, tropical, and prisoner-of-war related disease conditions). 105
38 U.S.C. § 1112(c) (cancer conditions which may be presumed to be related to military service), and
see 38 C.F.R. § 3.308 (defines chronicity and continuity legal principles that apply to disease and cancer). 106
Supra note 77.
Page 18 of 39
illnesses.107
The Secretary of Defense has been empowered to ascertain multi-factorial
conditions, especially those with neurological symptoms to establish appropriate
programs and tracking systems.108
The Department of Defense109
and the VA have
specific programs in place for troops and veterans of both wars.110
The presence of federal statutes, regulations, and programs has not assured usage
or compliance by veterans. Troop or veteran resistance to seeking care or an inability or
neglect in seeking care could all contribute to a future veterans’ health care crisis in
Florida.111
The problem of non-compliance, and veterans’ non-engagement in their own
health care would be exacerbated by neurological problems resulting from combat.112
B. Department of Defense and Veterans Administration programs
In a report dated 2000, there were less than 500 veterans in the Department of
Defense and/or Veterans Administration programs for DU exposure.113
All veterans were
in Risk Levels I and II and had been entered in the programs based upon active duty
injuries attended to while in-service.114
A total of 600 veterans had availed themselves of
the DU questionnaire and DU post-exposure screening.115
the Veterans Administration, or uninformed regarding current law
change.125
3. Florida assures follow-up toxicology screening for its citizen-soldiers.
4. Florida assures post-exposure screening for veterans excluded due:
a. To lower risk level assessments at the time of active duty or
discharge and
b. To question or controversy of self-assessed risk level at above
times.
5. Florida assures testing for suspected effects of sequestered DU such as:
a. dysfunction of diverse organ systems- genito-urinary,
neurological, etc.;
b. diverse cancers of multiple organ systems; and
c. dysfunction of reproduction, or next-generation birth
abnormalities.
6. Florida assures state-of-the-art post-exposure screening for its veterans.
7. Florida assures proactive care for veterans where the Department of
Defense was unprepared for the consequences of the war activity.126
8. Florida proactively intercedes for its veterans to facilitate federal program
entrance and federal benefits.
9. Florida assists its veterans to navigate the maze of protocols, information,
acronyms, websites, and details necessary to obtain DU testing and
inclusion in federal programs.
10. Florida’s veterans warrant the best care available.
B. Legislative components.
The states127
that enacted DU legislation generally cite to the federal statutes
defining the combat assignment of its National Guard veterans.128
As a representative
example, “[E]ligible member” means a “member of the New York army national guard or
the New York air national guard who served in the Persian Gulf War, as defined in 38
U.S.C. §101, or in an area designated as a combat zone by the president of the United
States during Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.”129
States cite to
the federal statutes obligating the federal pre- and post-deployment testing of Persian
125
Veteran’s appeal, 2004 BVA Lexis 30237, BVA 04-17099 (June 28, 2004) (veteran never received notice
of federal statute changes; continued case). 126
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld Town Hall Meeting in Kuwait, Secretary
Rumsfeld Town Hall Meeting in Kuwait, (Dec. 8, 2004) (“[Y]ou go to war with the army that you have. . .
”) Secretary of Defense’s ad lib question and answer exchange with a troop member in Kuwait on Dec.
2004, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1980. 127
Supra notes 1-6. 128
10 U.S.C. § 101 (2009). 129
N.Y. Exec. § 366(1)(a) (McKinney 2009).
Page 21 of 39
Gulf War veterans, “[p]re-deployment health assessments and post-deployment
assessments and reassessments for evaluating Gulf War Veterans are required under
Section 1074f of title 10, United States Code.”130
And, they cite to the Veterans Health
Administration protocols131
and the Army DU handling protocol pamphlet,132
“[t]hat
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Handbook outlines the policy and procedures
evaluating Gulf War veterans, including those who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom,
with possible exposure to depleted uranium. Army Regulation 700-48 prescribes policy
and procedures for the management of equipment contaminated with depleted uranium or
radioactive commodities. The regulation applies to the department of the army, U.S.
Army Reserve and Army National Guard.”133
Typically, state funding of depleted uranium information and screening was
excluded from the legislation, deeming cost absorption was a function of the federal
government, “[N]o State funds shall be used to pay for such tests or other federal
treatment services.”134
In the single instance where state legislation included funding for
DU outreach and veteran monitoring, the legislation failed to be signed into law.135
All of the states’ enactments utilize urine sample monitoring as described in VHA
protocols.136
All legislation phrased the urine testing as choosing “best practice” health
screening to “[A]ssist veterans who may have been exposed to depleted uranium to
obtain the best practice health screening test from the federal department of veterans
affairs to test for exposure to depleted uranium using a bioassay procedure involving
130
Id., quoting N.Y. Laws ch. 743 § 1 (2008). 131
Winkenwerder, Health Affairs Policy Memorandum, supra note 80. 132
Supra note 81. 133
Id. 134
330 Ill. Comp. Stat. 130/10 (2008). This is exemplary of the phraseology used. 135
Supra note 6. Connecticut legislation attempted to fund its DU outreach program. 136
Winkenwerder, Health Affairs Policy Memorandum, supra note 76.
Page 22 of 39
methods sufficiently sensitive to detect depleted uranium at low levels.” 137
Contemporary legislation often augments this phraseology by adding the phrase:
“[p]rovide information to veterans upon their discharge from active duty regarding the
health and safety issues concerning depleted uranium exposure, including the types and
efficacy of tests to detect depleted uranium exposure, the treatments available for
veterans affected by exposure to depleted uranium, and the federal and state benefits that
are available for veterans exposed to depleted uranium,” 138
and, in order to update DU
programs available to its veterans, “[P]rovide information to departmental staff,
interested veterans organizations, health care providers, and county veterans service
officers regarding the effects of depleted uranium exposure, the detection programs that
are available to determine if a veteran has been exposed to depleted uranium, the federal
treatment programs that are available to veterans who may have been exposed to depleted
uranium, and the federal and state benefits that are available to veterans who have been
exposed to depleted uranium.”139
Wisconsin’s legislation mandated that DU testing must comport to technological
advancements in radiation testing which could be decisive in the future, during the life-
span of the afflicted veterans. Geologists, in highly technological laboratory settings, are
able to detect urine uranium radioactivity for minimal exposure risk levels (Risk Levels
III or II) twenty years post-exposure.140
From these ascertained levels, and knowing the
bio-kinetic body-clearance rate for uranium, it is mathematically possible to project
137
Wis. Stat. § 45.03(21)(a) (2008). 138
Id., § 45.03(21)(b). 139
Id., § 45.03(21)(c). 140
Randall R. Parrish et al., Determination of 238u/235u, 236u/238u and uranium concentration in urine
using sf-icp-ms and mc-icp-ms: an interlaboratory comparison, 90 HEALTH PHYS. 127-138, (2006)
(signifies inductively coupled plasma mass-spectrometry, analysis has a 0.5% to 4% accuracy); and see
Randall R. Parrish et al., Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation exposure and its detection after
approximately 20 years: implications for human health assessment, 390 SCI. TOTAL ENVIRON. 58-68
(2007) (study of workers from a closed DU munitions plant in Colonie, N.Y.).
Page 23 of 39
backwards to calculate when and to how much DU a soldier was exposed.141
Different states’ legislation typically received broad bipartisan support and
success with no evidence of failed passage save the exception where a governor refused
to sign the legislation into law.142
VIII. FEDERAL RULES, FEDERAL LAW CHANGES PERTAINING TO DU,
AND FEDERAL LITIGATION.
A. Federal DU control attempts.
Attempts by citizens to curtail DU usage by petitioning the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to alter its rules for uranium use, personal exposure limits, and
environmental contamination have failed.143
These petitions were directed at the
uranium-use licenses of each specific service branch – the Army, Air Force, and Navy.144
There have been several attempts to codify many of the current Department of
Defense military procedures and DU protocols have been attempted and failed.
Congressional action proposed by Representative Jim McDermott of Washington to study
depleted uranium, how to mitigate damages, and to provide for a Department of Defense
clean-up of DU contaminated sites has been presented in the House.145
The Senate has
submitted legislation to acknowledge DU military usage and provide comprehensive
testing for troops.146
Representative Juan Serrano of New York resubmitted DU testing
141
WHO, Depleted Uranium, Exec. Summ., 6 (67% of radioactive isotopes excreted in the first 24 hours);
id. at § 7.6, 64, 65 (90% excreted in first few days), and id. at Annex 4.1 (International Commission on
Radiological Protection, The Human Respiratory Tract Model mathematically charts the bio-kinetic
clearance of depleted uranium in its many forms, and by contemporaneous placement on their chart an individual’s DU exposure can be traced back to date and dose, supra note 38). 142
Supra note 4 (Wisconsin’s DU bill had 29 House co-presenters, and 9 Senate co-sponsors), and supra
note 6. 143
James Salsman, Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 73 Fed. Reg. 43381 (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, July 25, 2008). 144
Notice of Issuance of Director’s Decision Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206, 71 Fed. Reg. 1456 (Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Jan. 9, 2006). 145
H.R. 2410, 109th Cong. (2005) (Rep. Jim McDermott). 146
S. A. 4374 to S. 2766, 110th Cong. (2006) (Senator Cantwell).
Page 24 of 39
legislation in 2009.147
B. Administrative claims
Federal statutes, regulations, and Department of Defense programs for active duty
personnel, and Veterans Administration programs for veterans have not prevented legal
disputes, claims, or survivor’s cause-of-death litigation. There is a catalog of disease and
cancer-related VA claims involving depleted uranium exposure which include
autoimmune thyroid disease;148
unlisted conditions such as anemia, chronic pain and
neuropathy;149
child birth defects and chronic fatigue;150
and neurological problems and
tinnitus.151
Cancer claims encompass multi-systemic cancers;152
pancreatic cancer in a
young veteran;153
cancer of the appendix;154
and cancers of the skin and colon.155
The
cancers present a time lag of years from time of discharge to claim initiation.
Veterans’ claims are handled expeditiously according to federal statute.156
If
there is equipoise between the veteran’s claim and evidence, and the finding of the
Veterans Administration investigator, the veteran’s claim prevails.157
The veteran’s
147
Depleted Uranium Screening and Testing Act, H.R. 177, 111th Cong. (2009); prior legislative history is
also available at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h177/test. 148
Supra note 121. 149
Hardin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 74 (Vet. App. 1998) (quadriplegic veteran’s unlisted conditions as per 38
C.F.R. § 3.311 and 38 U.S.C. § 1112(c) remanded for general VA compensation system procedures). 150
Veteran’s appeal, BVA 01-10729, 2001 BVA Lexis 28436, (B.V.A. 2001) (denied; no DU exposure,
only veteran’s contention; lacked expert evidence). 151